Appeal 2007-2842
Application 09/873,638
Appellant contends that Yamanaka “teaches a completely different
arrangement in which only a subframe retained by a base frame of a chassis
of a storage medium stocker is pivotable instead of a disk plate as recited in
Appellant[’s] claims 1-10” (Appeal Br. 4).
The issue raised by this appeal, then, is whether the claimed disk
changer is distinguishable over Yamanaka’s device. Appellant’s argument
does not persuade us that it is.
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d
1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “An essential purpose
of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and
unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be
removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
First, we agree with the Examiner that “the claim[ ] language fails to
provide adequate structural limitations to the claim in order to distinguish
from Yamanaka” (Answer 4). Second, we disagree with Appellant’s
assertion that only the sub-frame, and not the stocker tray, of Yamanaka’s
device is pivotable. Specifically:
• Yamanaka’s “base frame 12 is disposed in the chassis 11 so as to be
slidable in a loading direction” (Yamanaka ¶ 19), and “[t]he sub-
frame[ ] 13 is retained pivotably by the base frame 12” (id.). Thus,
base frame 12 and sub-frame 13, together, are slidably mounted
within the chassis, and we agree with the Examiner that these two
elements comprise the claimed “drawer slidably mounted within a
chassis of the changer” (instant claim 1).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013